TNAG-2177-FCO40-3114-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 49

As the Law

possible, but will also postpone court challenges providing judicial review of existing legislation. The judiciary, not the executive or legislature, is in the best position to promote the development of standards for human rights protection by building

up a body of precedent based on the Bill of Rights. Group noted in its previous memorandum, difficulty in determining inconsistencies in the abstract may arise without the benefit of

specific factual controversies presented after the Bill of Rights takes effect. Unlike the judiciary, government officials and

politicians with differing opinions on the extent to which

existing laws might conflict with the Bill of Rights may have no

impetus to sharpen the debate and resolve the inconsistencies.

Rather

In addition to the one-year freeze on all pre-existing

legislation, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Bill provides for the use of a predetermined and as yet unpublished "Schedule" of legislation that would remain unaffected by the Bill of Rights for an additional year, or such longer period as the Legislative

Council may determine. Part III, Sections 14 (3) and (4). than identifying conflicting laws to facilitate quick reform and compliance with the Bill of Rights, the additional and potentially unlimited freeze period threatens to severely hinder the system of repealing or amending pre-existing conflicting legislation and further postpone the development of common law precedent. In addition, the Schedule provision fails to provide guidelines for the Legislative Council to determine when and for

how long extensions should be provided.